Ex Parte Jun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14480444 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/480,444 09/08/2014
23494 7590 04/02/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhang Jun
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-73717 6234
EXAMINER
CHOW, VAN NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHANG JUN, SHEN GE, XU KANG CHENG,
ZHOU YI, HAO MENG, and JI RU JUN1
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 18-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Texas Instruments Incorporated, identified in
the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
Invention
The inventors disclose a capacitive touch sensor that includes a
number of input/output lines, where each of the number of input/output lines
is arranged to cross every other of the input/output lines. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (key limitations emphasized)
18. A touch sensor comprising:
a set of input/ output (110) lines, each 110 line arranged to
cross every other 110 line of the set of 110 lines;
a controller coupled to the set of 110 lines to set only one of the
set of 110 lines in a transmit mode and the remaining set of 110
lines in a receive mode; and
a set of buttons arranged at an intersection between each of the
I/O lines, in which the controller detects a touch event using a
signal received from the remaining set of I/O lines.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to be enabled by the Specification. Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner rejects claims 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAP A). Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner rejects claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over AAP A and Tomiyama et al. (US 5, 166,934; issued Nov.
24, 1992). Final Act. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
35USC§l12(a)
In rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner finds the
Specification fails to enable a set of input/output (110) lines, each 110 line
arranged to cross every other 110 line of the set of 110 lines. Final Act. 2
2
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
(citing Spec. i-f 127). Specifically, the Examiner finds an artisan of ordinary
skill would have needed to perform undue experimentation to make and use
the claimed invention. Final Act. 3. The Examiner interprets "every other
I/Oline" to mean alternate (i.e., all even or all odd) lines, but notes the
Specification instead merely describes an arrangement in which each
input/output line crosses all other input/output lines. See Adv. Act 2 (Dec. 6,
2016). However, in light of the Specification, we interpret "every other I/O
line" to mean "all other input/output lines." See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 6A-D.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
discloses a set of signal paths (i.e., input/output lines) in which "each signal
path crosses, without electrically connecting, every other signal path. As
such, each signal path is able to create a capacitance at a location where
it crosses every other signal path." App. Br. 3 (quoting Spec. ,-r 96); see
also App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. i-f 127, Figs. 6A-D).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The Specification's
Figure 6A, for example, illustrates eight input/output lines (TX/RX0-7),
where each input/output line is arranged to cross every other input/output
line or all other input/output lines (e.g., TX/RXO crosses with TX/RXl-7).
See also Spec. i-f 96. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the
Specification enables the disputed recitation of claim 18.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
rejection of claim 18, or claims 19-25, which are similarly rejected.
35 US.C. §§ 102(a)(l), 103
In rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), the Examiner finds
the Specification's disclosed prior art arrangement illustrating a number of
input/output lines that cross with each other discloses a touch sensor
3
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
comprising a set of input/output (110) lines, each 110 line arranged to cross
every other 110 line of the set of 110 lines. Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. Figs. 1-
3, i-fi-1 5-19). The Examiner notes that "claim 18 does not require at least
three or more lines." Ans. 5. Thus, the Examiner concludes that a set of 110
lines encompasses any pair of input/ output lines (i.e., a set of two input/
output lines). Id. Because the claim does not require that every input/output
line in the claimed touch sensor be in the claimed set of input/output lines,
the Examiner finds that every pair of crossing input/ output lines in AAP A
discloses a set of input/output (110) lines, each 110 line arranged to cross
every other 110 line of the set of 110 lines. Ans. 5.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because AAP A illustrates
input/output lines that do not cross other illustrated input/output lines. App.
Br. 5 ("[ f]or example, it can be seen that in Figure 2 of the AAP A, line 202
does not cross line 208"). However, Appellant does not provide persuasive
arguments or evidence showing error in the Examiner's interpretation of a
set of input/output lines as encompassing subsets of an input/output lines on
a touch sensor, including pairs.
Appellant argues the Examiner mischaracterized Figure 6A of the
Specification because it illustrates "a set ofI/O lines [that] includes 8 I/O
lines ... instead of 8 sets of I/O lines as interpreted by the Examiner."
Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 3. However, this miscalculation (there are
actually twenty-eight possible sets of two input/output lines in a superset of
eight input/output lines) does not show that the definition of a set of input/
output lines must include three or more input/output lines or that it must
include every input/output line of the touch sensor device.
4
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
Appellant also argues that, even given the Examiner's claim
interpretation, AAP A does not disclose the claimed invention because
AAP A discloses at least one line that fails to cross all other input/output
lines of the set of input/output lines. Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 4 ("the term
'every other' has meaning ... cross all other (not including itself) lines");
Spec. Fig. 2 (line 202 does not cross lines 204, 206, or 208)). However, the
claim only recites that "each I/O line [of the set of I/O lines is] arranged to
cross every other I/Oline of the set of I/O lines." The claim does not require
that all sets of input/output lines of the claimed touch sensor (including, e.g.,
all subsets of two input/output lines) meet the requirements of the disputed
recitation. Rather, the claim only requires one set (e.g., one pair of
input/output lines) in the claimed touch sensor meet the requirements.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding AAP A
discloses a controller coupled to the set of 110 lines to set only one of the set
of 110 lines in a transmit mode and the remaining set of 110 lines in a
receive mode because, for example, Figure 1 of AAP A discloses "that lines
102, 104 and 106 are in transmit mode and lines 108 and 110 [are] in receive
mode." App. Br. 6. However, Appellant's argument with respect to this
recitation is unpersuasive in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim in light of the Specification, which, as discussed above, includes
that recitations directed to a set of 110 lines can encompass just one pair of
input/output lines.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
rejection of claim 18. Appellant submits that claims 19--25 stand or fall with
independent claim 18. 1 d. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's
5
Appeal2017-010561
Application 14/480,444
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) rejection of claims 19-24 and the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Because we affirm at least one of the Examiner's rejections for each
claim, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6